I’m baffled by the stories that come out of Philadelphia after every single election. Last November, one polling location staffed by many Democrats thought it was perfectly appropriate to line up the voting machines in a room with a giant mural of a candidate on the ballot. A judge had to step in and let them know to cover it up. I wouldn’t even care if it was my candidate, my first thought would be to send someone out for a tarp, bed sheet, or giant roll of paper to cover it since it could clearly be seen as electioneering. But, no. This is something that Philadelphia poll workers needed a court to order.

After yesterday’s primary, the news was complaining about the lack of “shenanigans” that required court intervention in Philadelphia. I mean, how dare these people think that holding reasonable elections without rampant violations of election laws is acceptable?

That said, the main story this highlight still leaves me baffled. Apparently a candidate on the ballot tried to convince a poll worker running the elections to wear a temporary tattoo that promoted his campaign. The story says that the candidate was joking (but he apparently doesn’t dispute that he made the suggestion), but the opposition still went to court in order to get a judge to make it official that candidates should not be pushing poll workers to campaign illegally inside polling places. I would think this is common sense, but apparently not in Philadelphia.

And for these many reasons, I’ll never understand that city. I’m even more confused by the voters who consider all of this reasonable behavior.

My folks grew up in Philly in the ’20s and ’30s, and even I am old enough to remember when exactly the same stuff went on, perpetrated by the Republicans instead of the Democrats. It used to be a city as Republican controlled as it is now Democratic controlled. Not much has changed other than the ethnicities of the perpetrators. (You should have heard some of the tales from the Frank Rizzo Sr. Era, while things were transitioning.)